• I mentioned the gender-critical barney over pronouns yesterday. Now Janice Turner defends herself in the Times – I’ll use whatever pronouns I think courteous.

    I will use female pronouns for some trans women. My rules are personal. I will call no male who commits a sexual or violent offence “she”. But those who respect women, like Debbie Hayton, or those I meet in real life, I will respect. This will win me abuse on both sides: Stonewall would say the choice should not be mine; gender-critical ultras will cry traitor.

    Interestingly, the comments are strongly critical. This is currently the most recommended:

    I rather think the crux of this issue for many, if not most, females is ignored.

    In humans, as in all mammals, female has a distinct meaning. That meaning obviously has a limit, a boundary, as does the distinct meaning for male.

    Any man declaring himself to be a woman, ie: female, violates the boundary of the meaning of the sex class that is female. It is a violation of the integrity of the sex class that is female.

    This violation, occurring as an assertion of male power over females, is against our female consent.

    It is a blatant deceit on all women and girls to use 'she' or 'her' when referring to any man who pretends he is not a man, whether it is considered a matter of courtesy or not.

    It is a blatant deceit on our entire society for any law to state that a man can become a woman.

    Women are very angry about this violation and this deceit.

  • Iranian ambassador to Afghanistan Hassan Kazemi Qomi – "Afghanistan is quite far away from Gaza. But what is clear to us today is that Afghanistan is part of the axis of resistance. If there is an opportunity and a need, more than one military division of martyrdom-seekers can go from Afghanistan to support Gaza.":

  • Inside the Home Office asylum system: "The whole culture is rotten".  In the Telegraph:

    Home Office staff were invited to celebrate “World Hijab Day” despite asylum guidance which says being forced to adhere to religious dress codes is “persecution”.

    Civil servants were accused of being “tone deaf” for sending the internal message to staff who process asylum applications.

    That's the main article, but it's just it's just a taster of the dysfunctional state of affairs revealed below by an anonymous civil servant:

    I work in the Home Office deciding whether to grant people asylum, and I am terrified that one day one of my cases will end up on the news.

    For me, the case of Abdul Shokoor Ezedi, the twice rejected asylum seeker who is suspected of committing an atrocious acid attack on a mother and two young girls, was the final straw. I cannot sit idly by while I watch our broken asylum system fail again and again.

    There has been no internal communication about the recent acid attack case. Nothing. Not even an email telling us that they are looking into how it could have been allowed to happen.

    Instead we are bombarded with emails that celebrate things like “World Hijab Day’’ at the same time as I deal with cases of women claiming they cannot go back to Iran otherwise they will be forced into wearing these items.

    The whole culture is rotten and I don’t actually think half of the senior civil service have the strength, or will, to be tough on asylum. I went to one speech where the head of asylum, who has now left, openly said she disagreed with the Government’s policies.

    My colleagues and I all know that most of these cases are not legitimate, but our hands are tied. I estimate that around one in four cases I decide on are genuine.

    Not every asylum seeker starts off knowing how to game the system, however, it has become clear to me that word spreads and trends emerge regarding how to game their applications.

    Asylum seekers will be coached, often by legal representatives or through friends and family (some of whom may have been granted asylum in the past), to concoct a reason they might be persecuted in their home country.

    They “convert” to Christianity, often coming with evidence of recent baptisms, or say they are gay and take pictures in gay nightclubs to prove it (some of these photos look as though they are very uncomfortable being there). In one instance a male claimed that he was gay, only to drop the assertion halfway through his asylum interview because he felt so disgusted by the idea.

    In one interview the claimant insisted that he was being persecuted in his home country due to his political beliefs. I asked him to name the leader of his nation’s opposition party and he couldn’t answer. He asked for a break and came back ten minutes later knowing everything about the political situation.

    This job is incredibly stressful and I worry that people’s safety is being put at risk. Some applicants will arrive with criminal convictions, including sexual offences, but this does not automatically disbar them from entry.

    The Home Office provides endless groups for staff well-being with lots of diversity organisations and so on. But, I could never picture myself going to my manager with my concerns. I don’t think I’m a coward, but I know it will end badly if I say something.

    There are a few people I have worked with who are on the same page, but we all know that our promotion chances would be dead in the water if we brought up anything “non PC”.

    The Home Office is hostile to those who speak up internally, unless their complaint is about diversity or discrimination or some other civil service obsession.

    Home Office directives and pressure to clear the backlog of asylum cases has caused caseworkers to cut corners. The default is now to err on the side of accepting people. For example, we have been told to cut down the time it takes to conduct asylum interviews, which has led to confusion and a lack of clarity over some cases.

    Even as someone who is sceptical of many applications, internal targets and incentives mean that I feel under huge pressure to accept people. It takes less than half an hour to accept a case, while it takes around a day to write up a report to reject someone (this is because you have to lay out the evidence as to why you rejected it for legal reasons, which is a timely process)….

    The Home Office ethos and “values” are all around safeguarding asylum seekers and protecting their welfare. My department is failing in its first mission and priority, to protect the British public.

  • Another court victory for gender-critical belief against trans ideology. Shahrar Ali has won his case against the Green Party:

    The Green Party discriminated against former deputy leader Dr Shahrar Ali during a row over his gender critical beliefs, a court has ruled.

    Joan Smith:

    In a stunning victory for politicians who believe in biological sex, Judge Hellman found that the party “discriminated against Dr Ali because of his protected belief contrary to section 101 of the Equality Act”.

    This morning’s judgment, which is the latest in a series of legal wins for individuals with gender-critical beliefs, has far-reaching implications for political parties in this country. Speaking on the steps of the court, Ali described it as a “landmark case”. Mocking politicians who can’t bring themselves to use words banned by trans activists, he said it was “the mother (yes, adult human female) of all gender-critical cases”….

    This judgment constitutes a warning for political parties that have allowed trans ideology to run riot in their ranks, genuflecting to ideologues who equate a belief in biology with hate speech. It’s one of the most monstrous lies ever promulgated, turning a simple statement of fact into something not just contentious but potentially career-ending.

    Labour, the Greens, the Lib Dems and the SNP have all been complicit, along with a handful of Tories. Women (and some men) who point out that humans are born with a sex and can’t change it have been treated as pariahs, as though views accepted as mainstream for thousands of years have suddenly become shameful.

    Now, one organisation after another is discovering the financial and reputational cost of countenancing such smears. Political parties, the arts, local government and NGOs are all finding themselves in court, called to account for failing to protect individuals with sensible and perfectly legal opinions. They’ve swallowed the line that people have an innate gender identity that must be recognised even by those who don’t believe it, and have treated anyone who refuses as a heretic.

    There has always been a glaring democratic deficit, to put it politely, as organisations impose the demands of trans activists on a population which hasn’t ever been consulted. Now we are seeing the result, as the courts step in to protect the rights of individuals. “This win is a wake-up call,” Ali declared on Friday morning. Let’s hope he’s right.

  • The Brighton Argus reports:

    A woman could be jailed for making online threats to kill campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen.

    Except, of course, he's not a woman. 

    Layla Le Fey [!], 44, posted tweets on X, formerly known as Twitter, threatening two well-known "women’s rights campaigners" Helen Joyce and Kellie-Jay Keen, also known as Posie Parker.

    The posts described wanting to burn one of their houses down with them inside it and wanting to “physically kick the s*** out of you, pull your eyes out and break your spine”.

    Three of the posts were made in March and one on June 7 last year. Le Fey was arrested by Sussex Police a few days after the final tweet. Brighton Magistrates' Court heard yesterday that Le Fey could be jailed for up to eight weeks or given a community order.

    "I live in Portslade, East Sussex, UK. If you want to prove your point that some trans people are extremely violent, I’m game. “I’d be interested in setting fire to her house with her in it,” another tweet said.

    Le Fey, of George Williams Mews, Portslade, pleaded guilty to four counts of sending an offensive/obscene/menacing message via public communication network.

    Duty solicitor Andrew Foreman, defending, said: “It seems to be the case that this is part of the culture war between trans activists and women’s rights activists. Feelings run high between both sides.”

    Reports of gender-critical woman threatening trans women were not available to back up this comment, as there aren't any. The threats of violence are all one way.

    The court heard Le Fey had a “very extensive” list of previous convictions.

    Le Fey, wearing a chequered suit, leopard print jacket and earrings, previously tried to steal wine from Budgens in Queen’s Road, Brighton, then threatened to hit the manager with a claw hammer.

    Lovely.

    There's something of a barney going on in gender-critical circles about pronouns. Both Andrew Doyle and Janice Turner have been abused by the hard-liners for using female pronouns for Debbie Hayton, the loudly gender-critical trans woman who's just written a book about her (there, I've said it!) "transsexual apostasy". I can't see the harm really in a degree of social courtesy when dealing with a man presenting as a woman if they're not in any way threatening. But I can see the other argument.

    What is surely inexcusable though is this journalistic practice of referring to a violent man as a woman, when the fact of his masculinity – his trans-ness – is absolutely essential to an understanding of the story.

  • Seems like open season on Jews at UK universities. Birmingham, now Leeds:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • From the Jerusalem Post:

    Son of Hamas co-founder Mosab Hassan Yousef, also known as 'the Green Prince', spoke up in support of Israel during an interview conducted with the spokesman of the Prime Minister's Office for Arab media.

    The interview delved into personal topics, as Yousef discussed his childhood, describing his experiences growing up as the son of Hamas co-founder Sheikh Hassan Yousef.

    Yousef also discussed his experience of studying at a UNRWA high school in the West Bank and explained that the education he received there was one where hatred towards Jews was encouraged.

    "Everywhere you go, there is hatred towards the Jewish people and Israel. You are taught hatred in mosques, schools, the street, and at home," he stated when reflecting on his education at the UNRWA high school.

    Yousef then discussed the terrorist organization Hamas in further depth and about the current situation in the Arab world and the Middle East.

    "The people who wrote the Hamas charter are a group of lunatics," he said.

    Yousef also had a warning for the Arab world, stating that "the Arab world needs to pay attention to the danger from within. Hamas doesn't care about human lives. They sacrifice the lives of children…to achieve cheap political goals."

    The interview, in Arabic, as yet has no English subtitles.

  • https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • Jörg Luyken on the new antisemitism in Germany: not so much neo-Nazis, more Muslim immigrants.

    These days, you don’t even have to be involved in activism to “get what you deserve.” Last month, a young Israeli couple were assaulted by two Arab men at a fast food restaurant in the Berlin neighbourhood of Neukölln after they were overheard speaking Hebrew. One of the men tried to hit the young woman over the head with a chair.

    These sorts of attacks are examples of a new type of anti-Semitism that Germans are still uncomfortable talking about: hatred towards Jews in 2024 is more likely to come from Middle Eastern migrants than from neo-Nazis.

    Officially, this isn’t true. In national police statistics, over 90 percent of anti-Semitic crime is still “assigned to the far-Right.” The problem is that the culprits for things like swastikas scrawled on a wall are hardly ever apprehended. And, when in doubt, police still tick the “far-Right” box in the crime report.

    This practice has recently been criticised. A report commissioned by the Bundestag in 2017 found that the official statistics “distort the picture towards the Right” and “shouldn’t be mistaken for a representation of reality.”

    Indeed, other research paints a very different picture.

    A 2017 study conducted by the University of Bielefeld among victims of anti-Semitism found that 80 percent thought the culprit was a Muslim. Last year, a survey by the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung found that Muslims were over three times as likely as the rest of society to agreed that “Jews shouldn’t be surprised if they get a smack.”

    That chimes with anecdotal evidence I’ve heard.

    When I visited a Berlin synagogue shortly after the Hamas attacks in October, people I interviewed said that they avoid migrant neighbourhoods like Neukölln and Kreuzberg due to safety concerns.

    One man said that ever fewer Jews send their children to state schools for fear that they will be bullied by their Muslim peers. That isn't just paranoia. There have been several cases in recent years of Jewish children being bullied out of school by Muslim classmates.

    It would seem that this hatred is being stoked up in mosques.

    Surely not!

    A study released by the Bertelsmann Institute in December found that non-practising Muslims are about as anti-Semitic as the rest of society (i.e. one in five think Jews have “too much influence” in Germany). But, among Muslims who regularly attend mosque, half think that Jews have “too much influence” and close to 80 percent agree that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is “the same as how the Nazis treated the Jews.”

    Given that hundreds of German mosques are run by imams sent by the Turkish government, that isn't the most surprising finding. After all, a couple of months back, the head of Ankara's religious authority described Israel as “a dagger” in the heart of the Muslim world.

    Muslim attitudes to Jews vary though. Migrants from countries in southern Europe like Bosnia have broadly similar views of Jews to those in German society as a whole.

    By the way, religion can work in both directions. Devout Christians are much less likely to be anti-Semitic than the rest of society, the Bertelsmann survey showed. “After centuries of hostility, churches in Germany have taken a critical look at their role in the Holocaust, something that has had an effect on their congregants," the report noted.

    An interesting and telling contrast there between the two religions. 

  • https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js